Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for you, and I have enormous respect for the law of this land. We are talking about whether or not the law of this land is applicable when it comes to the Conservatives.

I note that the government suspended three senators who were just under investigation, and yet we have a member who has been convicted of a crime. This is an issue for the House of Commons. Does the government believe that people who commit crimes should not be sitting in the House of Commons? Yes or no?

Paul CalandraConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, further measures will be reviewed by the procedures and House affairs committee. It has a very good track record in dealing with these types of issues. Recently the NDP was found guilty by both the procedures and House affairs committee and by the Board of Internal Economy of running illegal satellite offices to the tune of over a million dollars, so I have every confidence that the standing committee will take a further look at this matter.

Mr. Speaker, here is an important quote. “It benefits some parts of the Canadian population a lot and other parts of the Canadian population, virtually not at all.” That is what the late Jim Flaherty said of the type of income splitting announced last week.

A single mother working as a nurse and raising an 8-year-old child would get nothing from income splitting. However, a senior bank executive whose husband stays home with their 8-year-old would get $2,000. How does that pass Jim Flaherty's test of fairness?

Mr. Speaker, I had the enormous pleasure of working closely with Jim Flaherty, the world's greatest finance minister. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the fantastic new family tax breaks and benefits address the concerns that he had.

We are proud that every family with children stands to benefit from these measures introduced last week.

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, the social development minister said, “...the majority of single parents are low-income, and so income splitting would not benefit them.”

However, it is actually worse. Whether they are low-income or high, single moms and dads get nothing, simply because they are single.

Canada today has over 1.5 million single-parent families. In the words of Jim Flaherty, why does the government think it benefits our society overall to make those who cannot split pay for the more privileged who can?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that they are better off under our Conservative government. Under our plan, every Canadian family with children would have more money in their pockets to help ends meet. That is over four million families.

Under our plan, a single parent with two children who was earning $32,000 a year would receive over $1,500 per year. A two-earner couple with one child who were making $48,000 and $12,000 would see their tax bill reduced by 25%.

Canadians know that our government will continue to take measures to put money back into their pockets.

Mr. Speaker, middle-class Canadians are better off under our Conservative government. The median net worth of Canadian families has increased by 45% since we have come to office. For the first time, middle-class families here in Canada are earning more and are better off than their American counterparts.

Under our plan, every Canadian family with children would have more money in their pockets at the end of the day to help make ends meet. Canadians would see an average of $1,140 more as a result of these measures.

Mr. Speaker, France will host the next United Nations conference on climate change. France's foreign affairs minister, who is trying to build a consensus, believes that now is the time for the international community to take immediate action.

Has the Prime Minister spoken about this topic with President Hollande, and did he commit to putting an end to 10 years of Conservative inaction on climate change?

Mr. Speaker, our government wants a fair agreement in Paris that includes all emitters and all economies. It is important that this agreement be durable, flexible, and effective.

Meanwhile, Canada will continue to take concrete action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while keeping our economy strong. Canada emits less than 2% of the global greenhouse gas emissions, and our per capita emissions are now at their lowest level since we started recording in 1990.

Mr. Speaker, we are proud of our record. We are a founding member of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition. We have made significant investments to help support green energy and infrastructure internationally. We have provided $1.2 billion to developing countries to address climate change.

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear: inadequate Conservative measures just will not cut it.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said of this report, “Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side”. Instead of acting to take on climate change, the Conservatives plan on cutting funding for climate change programs by 70% by 2016-17.

Why are the Conservatives undermining climate science in Canada at a time when it is needed so much?

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to protecting the environment while keeping the Canadian economy strong.

We are a founding member of, and a major financial contributor to, an international coalition taking action to reduce pollutants such as black carbon and methane. We have contributed $1.2 billion in fast-track financing to developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This funding supports over 100 projects in over 60 developing countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, just to name a few examples.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have been pushing a wasteful and ineffective job plan that would create only a few jobs at an astronomical cost to taxpayers. Now they trot out their income-splitting scheme, which would do absolutely nothing for 86% of Canadian families, at a huge cost of $2.5 billion. Income splitting would do nothing for couples who earn equal amounts of money, would do nothing for couples with no children, and would do nothing for single-parent families.

Why are the Conservatives spending so much money to make life so unfair for so many Canadian families?

Mr. Speaker, our government is bringing forward tax measures for families that would help put money back into their pockets.

The New Democratic Party has a plan that would only help a small number of Canadian families. Our plan would give all Canadian families with children a choice. Unlike the NDP, which wants to force a massive $5 billion big, bureaucratic, one-size-fits-all child care program, we would be putting cash back into the pockets of Canadians so that they can make a choice for their own children.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy faces the serious challenge of an aging workforce. As the boomer generation retires, we need to allow more Canadians, not fewer, into the workforce.

The New Democrats' affordable and universal child care plan would do exactly that. It would boost women's participation in the workforce and help our economy, but the Conservatives' income-splitting scheme would undermine decades of efforts for women's equality in the workplace.

Why are the Conservatives spending billions of dollars to try to turn the clock back on women's participation and equality here in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' proposed income splitting plan creates additional barriers for women and their careers. Not only does their plan ignore the reality facing women and the labour market in the 21st century, but it will also only benefit the wealthy.

Why are the Conservatives putting forward regressive policies that completely disregard 86% of families, including single-parent families, couples without children and parents with children in university?

Mr. Speaker, the enhanced universal child care benefit would provide $720 more a year for every child and $1,920 for a child up to the age of six. This monthly cheque would help Canadians make ends meet and pay for priorities like groceries, after-school activities for their children, and savings for post-secondary education.

By giving cash back to Canadians, we are allowing parents to make the choice on what their priorities are for their families, not some government bureaucrat.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Court of Appeal was clear in its ruling handed down Friday: the Conservatives must immediately reinstate the interim federal health program to the way it was before the 2012 cuts. That is exactly what the NDP, health care professionals and refugee rights advocates have been asking for from the beginning.

Will the government comply with the federal court order and reinstate the refugee health benefits by tomorrow, or does it intend to contravene the court's decision?

Mr. Speaker, we are still disappointed with the court's decision. For that reason we are going to appeal. We will continue to protect the interests of refugees and Canadian taxpayers, and we will soon announce the details of our response to this decision.

Mr. Speaker, the only response we want in this place is for the minister to reinstate the program to the way it was before the changes he introduced.

Since July 2012, some legitimate refugee claimants no longer have access to health care. We are talking about asthmatic children or pregnant women who are diabetic, people who cannot get basic and essential health care. Furthermore, the government now wants to allow provinces to strip these refugee claimants of their social assistance.

Why is the government continuing to punish these people? Why does it always go after asylum seekers? That is unfair.

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. Refugees continue to have the same quality of health care as Canadians. We are disappointed with the court's decision. We will appeal and we will announce the details of our response to the court's decision soon.

Mr. Speaker, there is a clear pattern of behaviour here. The minister ignored the protests of doctors, refugee advocates, provinces, and parliamentarians and took health care away from children and pregnant women.

He ignored the ruling of the Federal Court that said his cuts were “cruel and unusual”. Now he's lost another case, as the Federal Court of Appeal has emphasized the harm suffered by refugees without health care.

Will the minister finally give up his lengthy assault on basic Canadian values?